Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

United States v. Laurix

United States District Court, D. Nevada

May 22, 2018

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiffs,
v.
WILLIAM LAURIX, Defendants.

          ORDER

         Presently before the court is petitioner William Laurix's abridged motion to vacate, set aside, or correct sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255. (ECF No. 22).

         Also before the court is petitioner's motion to vacate, set aside, or correct sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255. (ECF No. 23). The government filed a response (ECF No. 26), to which petitioner replied (ECF No. 28).

         Also before the court is the government's motion for leave to advise the court of new authority. (ECF No. 29). Petitioner filed a response. (ECF No. 30). The government has not filed a reply, and the time for doing so has since passed.

         I. Facts

         On September 8, 2004, the government brought an indictment charging the petitioner with three counts of armed bank robbery, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2113(a) and (d), and three counts of use of a firearm during a crime of violence (“use of a firearm”). (ECF No. 1). On November 10, 2004, petitioner pleaded guilty to three counts of armed bank robbery (counts one, three, and five), and one count of use of a firearm (count six). (ECF No. 12).

         On February 7, 2005, the court sentenced petitioner to 70 months imprisonment for the armed bank robbery convictions and 84 months imprisonment for the § 924(c) conviction, with the latter conviction to run consecutive. (ECF No. 15). The court entered the judgment on February 18, 2005. (ECF No. 17). Petitioner is currently on supervised release. (ECF No. 23).

         In his instant motion, petitioner moves to vacate pursuant to Johnson v. United States, 135 S.Ct. 2551 (2015) (“Johnson”), and requests that the court resentence petitioner.[1] (ECF No. 23).

         II. Legal Standard

         Federal prisoners “may move . . . to vacate, set aside or correct [their] sentence” if the court imposed the sentence “in violation of the Constitution or laws of the United States . . . .” 28 U.S.C. § 2255(a). Relief pursuant to § 2255 should be granted only where “a fundamental defect” caused “a complete miscarriage of justice.” Davis v. United States, 417 U.S. 333, 345 (1974); see also Hill v. United States, 368 U.S. 424, 428 (1962).

         Limitations on § 2255 motions are based on the fact that the movant “already has had a fair opportunity to present his federal claims to a federal forum, ” whether or not he took advantage of the opportunity. United States v. Frady, 456 U.S. 152, 164 (1982). Section 2255 “is not designed to provide criminal defendants multiple opportunities to challenge their sentence.” United States v. Johnson, 988 F.2d 941, 945 (9th Cir. 1993).

         III. Discussion

         In the instant motion, petitioner requests that the court vacate his allegedly erroneous conviction pursuant to Johnson. (ECF No. 61). In particular, petitioner argues that his conviction violates the Constitution's guarantee of due process.

         In Johnson, the United States Supreme Court held the residual clause in the definition of a “violent felony” in the Armed Career Criminal Act of 1984, 18 U.S.C. § 924(e)(2)(B) (“ACCA”), to be unconstitutionally vague. 135 S.Ct. at 2557. The ACCA defines “violent felony” as any crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year, that:

(i) has as an element the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against the person of another; or
(ii) is burglary, arson, or extortion, involves use of explosives, or otherwise involves conduct that presents a serious potential risk of physical injury to another.

18 U.S.C. § 924(e)(2)(B) (emphasis added). The emphasized above is known as the ACCA's “residual clause.” Johnson, 135 S.Ct. at 2555-56. The Court held that “increasing a defendant's sentence under ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.